The Law In Wartime: A Legal Theory Approach To Executive Order 906
The Law in Wartime:
A Legal Theory Approach to Executive Order 9066
While they were never as atrocious as German concentration camps, internment camps in America remain one of the most significant violations of basic rights in American history. This paper will be focused on Executive Order 9066, which was signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in February 1942 and allowed for this internment. The Executive Order essentially granted many powers to the Secretary of War, the biggest of which was the ability to define military zones and to control who is allowed to reside in these zones. Passed as a national security measure, the Executive Order was upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. U.S., which claimed that national security, …show more content…
Essentially, they argue that the law must be moral to be valid, a belief best exemplified by the saying “lex iniusta non est lex,” meaning unjust law is not law. Natural law theory therefore assumes some universal morality and has, as a result, largely been criticized as idealistic and impractical. Because it would be near impossible to establish a universal test of morality for laws, many natural law theorists in recent years have slightly modified their approach and instead treated natural law theory as a framework for the development of ideal of law as a moral good. Nonetheless, for the purpose of our analysis, we will focus on natural law theorists’ views on the validity of law and the importance of …show more content…
We will begin by discuss the order in and of itself. Through Executive Order 9066, President Roosevelt authorized the Secretary of War to define military areas and control “the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave” these areas. It is difficult to determine whether this decision is itself moral. It would be considered immoral if one believes that freedom of movement should not be limited; however, if this is not the case, then it does not seem immoral in and of itself. Nonetheless, the results of this law cannot in any way be called just. The forced internment of Japanese-Americans and deprivation of their property are largely accepted as immoral. Over 120,000 Japanese-Americans, about two third of whom were citizens, were forced to abandon their homes and property. It would be near impossible to morally justify such an act. Therefore natural law theorists would largely see the results of the law as unjust and would likely deduce that the law itself is unjust and therefore is not
A Legal Theory Approach to Executive Order 9066
While they were never as atrocious as German concentration camps, internment camps in America remain one of the most significant violations of basic rights in American history. This paper will be focused on Executive Order 9066, which was signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in February 1942 and allowed for this internment. The Executive Order essentially granted many powers to the Secretary of War, the biggest of which was the ability to define military zones and to control who is allowed to reside in these zones. Passed as a national security measure, the Executive Order was upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. U.S., which claimed that national security, …show more content…
Essentially, they argue that the law must be moral to be valid, a belief best exemplified by the saying “lex iniusta non est lex,” meaning unjust law is not law. Natural law theory therefore assumes some universal morality and has, as a result, largely been criticized as idealistic and impractical. Because it would be near impossible to establish a universal test of morality for laws, many natural law theorists in recent years have slightly modified their approach and instead treated natural law theory as a framework for the development of ideal of law as a moral good. Nonetheless, for the purpose of our analysis, we will focus on natural law theorists’ views on the validity of law and the importance of …show more content…
We will begin by discuss the order in and of itself. Through Executive Order 9066, President Roosevelt authorized the Secretary of War to define military areas and control “the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave” these areas. It is difficult to determine whether this decision is itself moral. It would be considered immoral if one believes that freedom of movement should not be limited; however, if this is not the case, then it does not seem immoral in and of itself. Nonetheless, the results of this law cannot in any way be called just. The forced internment of Japanese-Americans and deprivation of their property are largely accepted as immoral. Over 120,000 Japanese-Americans, about two third of whom were citizens, were forced to abandon their homes and property. It would be near impossible to morally justify such an act. Therefore natural law theorists would largely see the results of the law as unjust and would likely deduce that the law itself is unjust and therefore is not